Posted
At the park's request, the Township Council has introduced an ordinance that would ban smoking at amusement parks. A public hearing on the measure is scheduled for next Tuesday. Great Adventure already went nearly smoke-free last year, allowing guests to light up only in 15 designated areas, park President Mark Kane said. This year, park employees began strictly enforcing the no-smoking policy by ejecting any guest who is caught smoking outside those areas, he said. The park says the ordinance would give them a legal basis for the ejections.
Read more from Asbury Park Press.
I think that the no-smoking policy should be up to the park to decide. Having a legal backing to this seems to me to be going too far. If the park wants to escort people out for smoking, that's up to them. I disagree with it, and think that it is making too big of a deal out of something trivial. However, legal backing seems to be going too far.
I support private business owners right to decide if smoking is permitted or not on their property. I do not support government entities making that decision for everyone.
If you can't take on the responsibility of following the rules, then legislation gets passed. Isn't that the way things work in the US these days?
I'd agree with you about the legislation being overkill...IF people followed rules.
Hopefully this will include the parks in Ohio.
I'm glad that the park is finally enforcing the rules. I wish they would do this more with line jumpers, as well, but that's more trivial than smoking, since it doesn't really affect your health the way that second-hand smoke does.
Seriously, someone is smoking outside the designated area. Your park security reminds them they need to refrain from smoking until they are in a designated area. They comply, everyone's happy. They argue, you show them the *other* side of the gate. Seems simple to me...maybe too simple?
Did you read the article? It already is up to them and it's the choice they've made. They want the legal backing because it helps protect them from lawsuits (which would be silly anyway because it's private property and they can do whatever they want).
I think that the no-smoking policy should be up to the park to decide.
First off, Six Flags wants to promote a family image. Second hand smoke can be especially harmful to young children, much more so than adults. So, it is in their own family interest to be stricter in their enforcement of this policy.
Second, in terms of the need for an ordinance. This is NJ, the state that does not allow you to pump your own gasoline. The park may (rightfully so) feel that it needs an ordinance to stand behind its own policies without the fear of a lawsuit from a park patron. It's possible that someone could claim that smoking is addictive and the park is somehow in violation of the ADA act. (Don't laugh... Stranger lawsuits have been filed... and won...)
Sure, if you're against smoking, it sounds great to bring the state in to help ban smoking. What about the next ordinance the township passes? What if it's a noise ordinance? Or a light pollution ordinance (don't laugh, they have those out there)? What if it's a huge amusement tax? How about a ban on fats and junk food? Or they pass a law that minimum hourly wage in the township is $15.00 (and guess who pays for the increased labor costs)? Then what will you be saying?
RGB: I so totally agree. Keep the government out of (relatively) minor niggles like this. You may like the laws passed today, but believe me, tomorrow, *you* (SFI) will be in the cross-hairs.
In general, I'm not a big fan of first-offense ejections. I'd rather see them do something like take them to Guest Services, take their picture and dismiss them with a warning. Caught a 2nd time? BOOM! Yer outta here!
not that I smoke anyway....
I hear Bonfante has already gone smoke free.
At HW in most cases you will see us smokers vollentaraly visit the smokers pavilions and not carelessly and blatantly violate the rule. Just the same as we used the provided ashtrays prior to the new rule.
A rule or a law does nothing without enforcement and whats worse is where drastic measures have to be taken to enforce it.
Chuck, who just don't see minnimum wage workers povoking potentially violent situations.
You must be logged in to post